"Debts are canceled only when citizens rebel"
x Arantxa Manterola: Interview with Eric Toussaint. There are many examples throughout the history of canceled debts
You intervened during the G7 at the round table of the counter-summit on the abolition of illegitimate public and private debt. Why illegitimate?
In the case of a public debt, the one that is contracted is defined in conditions that do not respect the interests of the population, or also when a privileged minority is favored. For example, when to save a private bank that is going to bankrupt for having taken exaggerated risks, public money is given.
Are there examples in the world of debts that have been abolished?
Of course. In modern history, let's say for two and a half centuries to today, there are cases in which, as a result of citizen mobilization, they have been abolished. The Convention of 1792 proclaimed the annulment of two thirds of the public debt arguing that the French people did not have to pay for the debts contracted by the Monarchy. In 1919, Mexico canceled the debts claimed by French bankers and others who had lent money to corrupt regimes fought by legal democratic regimes. In 1837 the inhabitants of four US states (Arkansas, Florida, Missouri and Michigan) revolted against their respective rulers, who had raised taxes to pay off important debts acquired with banks that corrupted political men. They overthrew those governments and the new rulers canceled the debt.
There are other examples, such as Costa Rica. And much closer in time, Ecuador revoked in 2008 a debt that was considered illegitimate by a specific commission of auditors in which I participated. The same year is also the case of Iceland, which refused to pay a debt claimed by Great Britain and the Netherlands. There are a number of examples throughout history but, yes, it only happens when citizens rebel and pressure their respective rulers.
You say that, at least since the 19th century, debt is a weapon of political domination. And that also not only affects the so-called poor countries, but also the developed ones. It has become a sort of new colonialism. Where is democracy in all this?
What happens is that the lenders have managed to get the states into the gear of the public debt and thanks to this they get permanent benefits. The neo-liberal policies applied since Thatcher-Reagan era make the finance sector subject the states to a continuous dynamic of debt repayment and they renounce their obligations towards citizens. As a consequence, social spending is reduced to repay a debt that benefits a privileged minority.
So who really has the power? The IMF, the World Bank ...?
The big financial and industrial societies, which are totally linked to each other, that is, the big capital to use a classic formula. IMF and WB are agencies that are at the service of that great capital and exert enormous pressure on governments. We now have the case of Argentina or Greece, which are enduring the IMF blackmail. And these G7 lords who meet in Biarritz are directly linked to the IMF, which is a kind of gendarme of large multinationals and great economic powers.
At a time when the state of the left in general is not very buoyant and fatalism wins integers among impotent citizens against this state of affairs, what do initiatives like the G7 counter-summit provide?
It is clear that the situation in Europe and other areas of the world is complicated, but you don't have to lower your arms. We must continue advancing in awareness and that must be declined, in turn, in mobilization if we want to display its transormating force. That is precisely why we have met in this counter-G7 meeting, to help relaunch the mobilization.
The alter-globalist movement does not have the strength of the early 2000s, but there are yellow vests, before the outraged ones ... we must give them perspectives. Today, the alter-world movement does not have the same strength as at the beginning of the 2000s, but it is absolutely necessary that it be reinvented to regain its capacity to convene. Because we are seeing that there are spontaneous mobilizations such as yellow vests, a bit along the same lines as those indignant in 2011 in Spain. The question is to give perspective to all these movements. Left-wing political forces must stop disappointing citizens when they put them in government. For example, a great disappointment is perceived after the capitulation of Tsipras in 2015 in Greece. It is necessary that these forces keep their promises when they reach the government and give people hope again.
You propose the creation of new international institutions to deal with this situation. What kind of institutions?
Europe must be refounded. The European Union is an undemocratic institution serving private interests. All European treaties are mostly aimed at satisfying the interests of a privileged minority: competition at any price, the right of multinationals, permanent austerity, reduction of social spending ... Institutions such as the IMF or the World Bank do not work to the general interest Therefore, new political institutions are needed on other bases and with international financial organizations that replace the IMF, WB, and so on.
Although it sounds a bit ironic, officially this G7 is a summit against inequalities. It is known that inequalities are a source of social conflicts and conflicts are not beneficial to the interests of capital. What do you think these great capitalist powers will do to reduce, they say, inequalities?
That is pure rhetoric. Its policies and actions go absolutely the opposite way. Inequalities do not originate naturally; they are the result of the policies developed by the governments that meet in Biarritz and by those that have preceded them. This is a huge hypocrisy. These heads of state meet regularly and choose themes with the intention of deceiving international public opinion.
That said, I think at this point they no longer fool anyone. Seen as seen, its degree of credibility is extremely diminished. Trump, Boris Johnson, Salvini ... we have heads of state who are increasingly discredited because they have abandoned the fundamental principles of international law. And we are here to denounce them firmly and without hesitation.
Europe must be refounded. The European Union is an undemocratic institution serving private interests. All European treaties are mostly aimed at satisfying the interests of a privileged minority: competition at any price, the right of multinationals, permanent austerity, reduction of social spending ... Institutions such as the IMF or the World Bank do not work to the general interest Therefore, new political institutions are needed on other bases and with international financial organizations that replace the IMF, WB, and so on.
Although it sounds a bit ironic, officially this G7 is a summit against inequalities. It is known that inequalities are a source of social conflicts and conflicts are not beneficial to the interests of capital. What do you think these great capitalist powers will do to reduce, they say, inequalities?
That is pure rhetoric. Its policies and actions go absolutely the opposite way. Inequalities do not originate naturally; they are the result of the policies developed by the governments that meet in Biarritz and by those that have preceded them. This is a huge hypocrisy. These heads of state meet regularly and choose themes with the intention of deceiving international public opinion.
That said, I think at this point they no longer fool anyone. Seen as seen, its degree of credibility is extremely diminished. Trump, Boris Johnson, Salvini ... we have heads of state who are increasingly discredited because they have abandoned the fundamental principles of international law. And we are here to denounce them firmly and without hesitation.
Full text at: https://www.lahaine.org/cJ87
No comments:
Post a Comment